Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nega OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Ennui in Law and Civilization by nega

Oh, yea, sure, no "good" reason whatsoever...I want backlash...I have given precise brief explanation of, for instance, the double nihilation...of existential absurdity...the words used are the words which must be used to mention existential ontological precepts...come on, mention phenomenological ontological constructs in ordinary language, you will not even be able to state what you are attempting to discuss.

The good reason is to issue an indefeasible critique of the very notion of law, in order to give ourselves pause, and perhaps to see that we are becoming law-maniacs, and, need to retake our bearings...killing a poor person for selling single smokes in the park...we have gone absolutely insane via law...it is good to give law a good swift theoretical kick, and, show what absolute nonsense it is, and, to show that nonsensical law is no way more important than the life of any person which it so readily instantaneously murders...

It does not matter that you are particularly uncomfortable with big words and large concepts, that is your problem; I have a Socratic responsibility to radically criticize the State which brought me up and nurtured me from youth, if and when I see it is dreadfully wrong. I cannot do that in the language you prefer; only in the language I see to be requisite to describe and, to possibly begin to reflect upon and, perhaps, dissolve the problem of murderous and venal law...

1

Ennui wrote (edited )

People engaging in conversations about law in the real world have a Socratic responsibility not to masturbate on their own intelligence. Rather, a Socratic ethics is about making things clearer and breaking concepts down, deliberately engaging with others in such a way that they are brought to a higher understanding. Your process of "dissolving" it is rife with super-particular conceptions of human nature—a series of assumptions from Hegel to Satre that are unnecessary in the attack on the theory of law. Your process is not even philosophically primary to a discussion of law, which should begin by building and/or dissolving the concept of justice, but instead you consider the (admittedly faulty) relationship between linguistic law and justice's existential implications. A truer analysis would show that when people in power refer to legal dogma like it is absolute fact, they are actually referring to the almighty authority that at their behest preserves the system of subjugation. The epistemological problem you raised has little to do with the issue at heart.

Edit: I am a little girl.

3

nega OP wrote

I cannot, will not, do the work which is necessary, on the part of the reader, to comprehend what I am presenting, for, at the level of ontological theory regarding the structure of being a human being, there is no such thing as a rapid instantaneous, in-and-out-burger means, of attaining understanding of the ontological structure of human existence, hence, the bibliography. Of course it is "unclear"; that, however, is only the prima facie appearance. What is being set forth is, itself, clear. Here, there is no pre-prescribed mode of writing a critical destruction of the theoretical construct law. It has never been done before. I have done an indefeasible philosophical destruction of the construct law; and, I have not really at all employed complex discussion of Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est"'; or, of Hegel's "All determination is negation." Indeed, rather, I have utilized the simplest and most straightforward language of Sartre himself, to present the core precepts upon which my position is predicated. I am, at present, the only human being on earth thinking and writing an ontologically-based destruction of the notion law. Even if, at this point in history, no other person on earth is able to understand my position, it does not mean that that position is unclear or unintelligible. Anyone desiring to comprehend the destruction of law which I posit is simply under the necessity to work, toughmindedly to that end. I do not think you are actually the little girls you are now appearing to exhibit yourselves as. Quit crying and attacking me. When the going gets tough the tough get going; get going and attempt to comprehend what has never been said and done before; I have, at this point, worked for years to simplify my presentation into its present incarnation; one simply cannot omit all the difficulty attendant upon setting forth a description of the ideational phenomenon which I am continually working to configure. And, we are, this minute, engaging in a fruitful dialectic regarding the submission; however, in order to proceed authentically and profitably, we cannot constantly dwell upon attacking my person, merely attempting to mirror back to me your perceived foibles regarding the mode of presentation. It would be good to cut even the smallest possible part of the submission out of the whole, and, to attempt, together, to discuss what is being intended to be said...the constant ad hominem attacks against my person are unnecessarily grinding me down, and, are not contributing to what must be a strenuous striving to understand the subject matter of the piece...

−2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

You are making an effort to be obfuscatory, and it makes your post needlessly confusing.

If you didn't care about reader understanding of your material, you would not post. You can't seek an audience of people that aren't experts in your material and then refuse to make your material understandable to people that aren't experts.

Your second point, for example, could have been written as: "You cannot control human behavior with carefully worded rules. That idea is based on a complete misunderstanding of human nature." That's 21 words instead of 50.

3

nega OP wrote

"2. The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is linguistic phenomenon efficient for controlling and determining persons, in their origination of intentional acts, and/or inactions, via law, is, for reasons attendant upon the genuine authentic existential ontological structure of the originative modus operandi of a human act, radically in error." Versus: "You cannot control human behavior with carefully worded rules. That idea is based on a complete misunderstanding of human nature." With: "The precept that given legislated and/or judicial decisional language of law, is …'', I am rapidly, efficiently, declaring that is a completely common, longstanding idea, that "given", existing law, is considered to have some sort of capacity to move persons to do or not do actions. It is important that the word 'given' appear early in the essay, because, it is a central consideration later, throughout the essay. For you to just arbitrarily pronounce that 2. should be written the way you deem to be the correct way ,usurps my identity and freedom as the author, and, involves zero awareness of a prime goal being pursued, immediately within the essay. Your you-know-best attitude regarding the way the essay should be written, is an absurdity and, now prompts an infinite process of my explaining my rationale…

Hell no, I should never, ever, write what I determine necessary; and, should, instead, at all times, divine how the Other would write that which I would pen; hence leaving myself entirely out of the equation…

1

nega OP wrote

"'You are making an effort to be obfuscatory, and it makes your post needlessly confusing."' Earlier I failed to respond to the above. I absolutely am not intentionally obfuscating. I must work toward a less flowery and extravagant style; no fun... For instance, I bent over backwards to illuminate what the double nihiation is, in the simplest words I could muster. I sincerely appreciate your concern edmund.

1

nega OP wrote (edited )

I care about understanding, but I don't care that a particular reader, unwilling to work somewhat, in order to uncover what is being said, cries like a little girl, demanding simplicity especially for himself, who is too uneducated and unreflective a person to be able to understand what has already been radically paired down, from the way in which the material is actually expressed in the real world of scholarship. I cannot include extensive explanation of concepts for the reader in the text, it would surely bore the reader to insanity. I have actually achieved brevity; theoretically overthrowing the concept law in eighteen petite paragraphs. Extensive explanation can be provided on forums such as this during our dialectical interactions. I had to work radically hard for decades to comprehend this stuff, and, wrote successfully, clearly, as a straight A student, for PhD's, in order to take the degree in Philosophy...though I did it over a period of forty three years...college was females; GI Bill money; jobs through an employment department; healthcare at a hospital on campus; interesting lectures and studies...

Unfortunately, there is not such thing as "human nature", else humans would not, could not, be free. Freedom is the state of total absence of determination of one's living structure as a conscious being, from the outside, existing, world. We humans do not have a nature; we have an ontological structure, which is, perhaps, somewhat similar...

1

Ennui wrote

Do not assume the gender of others on this site.

3

nega OP wrote

Do not don't me.

−3

Ennui wrote

This is your first post, if I’m correct. Site wide policy is to avoid gendering people unless they denote otherwise. It’s to your benefit not to gender people unless you want to be removed.

3

nega OP wrote

Sorry. What did I say? To who, where?

0

Ennui wrote

You used “himself” in reference to a user on this site in the comment above.

3

nega OP wrote

I have no knowledge of the persons gender. It is standard English to write "'he"' in general reference to unknown persons...is the prohibition written into the rules? Please show me the written injunction.

−2

kin wrote

It is more an etiquette here for a lot of reason, I am no native English speaker so maybe youre right but part of our struggle is to redefine meanings and significants. May look silly for you but pronoun are treated with respect here

3

masque wrote (edited )

I am no native English speaker so maybe youre right

For future reference, the gender-netural "he" definitely is a thing, but mostly only among pedantic, probably older, probably conservative-ish people that pride themselves on speaking English "properly" regardless of whether their way of speaking actually comes across as natural to others. It's also used for cover by transphobes.

Based on everything else about the OP's writing style, I'm not in any way surprised that they also insist on using the gender-neutral "he."

4

nega OP wrote

Indubitably I am not incorrect. I am absolutely astounded regarding this serious phobia which attempts to dissolve an anciently concrete English usage. I begin to see that this site is radically idiosyncratic in its perspectival views. Very nice people engaging in an astoundingly suffocative intolerant linguistic absolutism, which is very likely in violation of the lease agreement with the provider of the software making this site tick. I cannot find a place onsite where this draconian putative rule is published...

0

masque wrote

The user etiquette page in the wiki says "Check for people's pronouns before using them, and go with they/them when it is not clear." But it's pretty difficult to find that page unless you specifically know to look for it, so I understand you not finding it on your own.

Since language is determined by usage (I'm sure you've heard this before, seeing as you referenced Wittgenstein earlier), the question of what the "correct" gender neutral pronoun is really boils down to the question of what pronoun people in a particular speaker group tend to use for someone of unknown gender. In practice, among the general population, and especially among younger people and people in left-leaning spaces like Raddle, "they" is more common than "he" when referring to people of unknown gender.

Raddle is indeed radical & somewhat idiosyncratic in its views. I'm not sure how you found it in the first place without noticing this. But the gender-neutral "they" is actually pretty mainstream at this point, and there's no point in holding on to the "anciently concrete English usage" of the generic "he."

4